Cited by 241Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsThermochemical Biomass Conversion ProcessesSoil and Unsaturated Flow

Influence of contrasting biochar types on five soils at increasing rates of application

Streubel, J. D., Collins, H. P., Garcia-Perez, M., Tarara, J., Granatstein, D., Kruger, C.E.·2011·Soil Science Society of America Journal

Abstract

A series of experiments was established to characterize biochars made from four feedstocks regionally available in the Pacific Northwest (wood pellets, softwood bark, switchgrass ( Panicum virgatum L.) straw, and anaerobically digested fiber) to determine their effect on five soils. Soils were amended with 9.8, 19.5, and 39.0 Mg ha −1 of each of the four biochars and evaluated for changes in pH, water holding capacity, N mineralization, and soil C. The C content of biochars derived from the herbaceous feedstocks was 60 to 67 kg kg −1 whereas that of the woody feedstocks was >75 kg kg −1 . In amended soils we found that biochars, regardless of origin, significantly raised the pH of all soil types 0.1 to 0.9 units, with the greatest impact on a sand soil. The biochars increased the soil C and water holding capacity at the higher rates of amendment depending on soil and biochar type. Nitrogen mineralization rates decreased in three of the five soils across all feedstocks. There were significant correlations ( r ≥ 0.9) between biochar C measured and biochar C added regardless of feedstock or soil type. Our research demonstrates that in temperate soils, biochar feedstock may not be as important a variable as soil type for increasing C content and pH but can influence N mineralization and water holding capacity.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2136/sssaj2010.0325

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 65 · Cited by 241

Authors
Streubel, J. D., Collins, H. P., Garcia-Perez, M., Tarara, J., Granatstein, D., & Kruger, C. E.
Affiliations
  • Washington State University (US)
  • Agricultural Research Service (US)
  • Dep. of Biological Systems Engineering Washington State Univ. Pullman WA 99164‐6120
Corresponding author
Collins, H. P.
Venue
Soil Science Society of America Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-07
Volume
75
Issue
4
Pages
1402-1413
ISSN
  • 0361-5995 (ISSN-L)
  • 1435-0661
OpenAlex
W2088863732
Cited by
241
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 9
FWCI
19.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Soil Science Society of America Journal (publishedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Thermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Soil and Unsaturated Flow
Keywords
biochar, biochar feedstock, soil amendment, soil pH, soil carbon, nitrogen mineralization, water holding capacity, wood pellets, softwood bark, biochar application rate, temperate soils, Pacific Northwest

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review